Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Mar 16: High Court today upheld the judgment of trial court whereby six accused allegedly involved in Fidayeen attack at Raghunath Temple were discharged and issued directions for proceeding against the Investigating Officer.
The judgment was passed in a criminal revision petition filed by the State against the order of trial court dated October 30, 2006.
According to the case, on March 30, 2002 a Fidayeen attack took place at Raghunath Temple. In this regard, FIR No.134/2002 was registered and on completion of investigation challan was presented against the accused for commission of offences punishable under Section 3 of Enemy Agents Ordnance Act, 2/3 of Prevention and Suppression of Sabotage Act and Sections 302/307 and 120-B RPC.
The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge Jammu. The respondents (accused) opposed the framing of charge on the ground that prima facie no evidence at all was available therefore there was no question of putting them to trial.
After hearing Senior AAG SS Nanda appearing for the State whereas Advocates Rupak Ratta and KK Pathan appearing for the respondents, Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir observed, “it is trite that at the time of framing or other wise of the charge, the trial court is not required to evaluate the evidence nor is obliged to meticulously sift and scan the entire material collected by the investigating agency”.
“Enquiry into pros and cons is impermissible but it is also trite that framing of charge is not an idle formality and the trial court has to evaluate the material collected during investigation for the purposes of ascertaining as to whether prima facie case against the accused exist so as to put the accused on trial”, High Court said, adding “the grounds must exist for presuming that the accused have committed the offence when the wording employed is such then it becomes the legal obligation of the trial court to evaluate the material / evidence based on which charge can be framed”.
High Court further observed, “from the order impugned it appears that the trial court has been totally alive to the legal position and has thereafter passed a well reasoned order”, adding “on the strength of the material collected during the investigation the trial court has finally concluded that prima facie no ground exists against the accused which would persuade the court to put the respondents on trial”.
“But there was sufficient material showing involvement of one Virinder Sharma, son of Vishal Sharma who has not been arrayed as accused. Noticing that with seriousness, trial court has directed notice to be served upon the investigating officer to show cause as to why he had not arrayed Virinder Sharma as one of the accused in the case”, High Court said while dismissing the revision petition.
High Court further directed Registry to send the copy of this order to trial court so as to proceed in the matter vis-à-vis Virinder Sharma and the investigating officer, in accordance with its order dated 30.10.2006.
Follow our WhatsApp channel